NO implication of accretebale particles and antiparticles (that are supposed to come into existence and to nihilate each-other in the vacuum) are mentioned by G&M altough Stephen Hawking calculates their accredability as a fundamental of his theory

"prooven misleading"

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

you are writing about a proof. Would you be so kind providing this proof ? - Please do not provide any assumptions, but the real proof, which is available according to your wording.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

Ralf Kannenberg,

as you surely remember, we were just yesterday and this very morning in discussion about why drs. Giddings & Mangano didn't mention at all potential accredability of vacuum-quanta-fluctuations by micro-black-holes:
http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2010/02/07/naive_fragen_an_die_naturwissenschaftlic


You can verify yourself quite easy if drs. Giddings & Mangano in their paper: ‘Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes’ http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3381v2
((Version 2, september 23 2008), which indeed IS foundation of CERN's LSAG 2008),
are mentioning any accredability of those particles/antiparticles which are believed to appear and anihilate themselve in aboundance in the so called vacuum.

Not one single estimation of those particle's accredability is to be found in their huge paper, which's aim is to declarete all worries about 'hypothetical stable black-holes' (eventually created at the lhc in huge masses (1/second)), as absolutly no reason to worry, because micro-black-holes, for sure, wouldn't find nearly anything to accrete some mass.
(As scientific such estimations ever might be)

Giddings and Mangano did many impressionating calculations in their paper to show, that it would last billions of years, until those tiny micro-black-holes would have gained some few kilogramms of matter.

Those calculations are (as any calculations) based on some choosen parameters as for example the size of an electron (which they decided to estimate as a one-dimensional point, only)
and what else could possibly become accreted by micro-black-holes.

They considered quarks, gluons and electrons as accretable sources of matter/energy for TeV-scale stable micro-black-holes, and nothing else, right?

As we, you and i, have found yesterday, dark matter and energies of fields (as for example electro-magnetic fields) are not for sure accretable, right?

But as we also found this morning:
those very same particles and antiparticles of vacuum-fluctuations, on which's accretability Stephen Hawking based his calculations, are not even mentioned in Giddings & Mangano's paper, ‘Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes’ http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3381v2

To make ist easy for you, to understand:
- Stephen Hawking considered particles and antiparticles of the supposed vacuum-fluctuations as accretebale by micro-black holes; but Giddings and Mangano didn't even mention those particles and antiparticles of the supposed vacuum-fluctuations.

And thus it's proven, that drs. Giddings and Mangano's did not evaluate sufficiently all possible sources for hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes to accrete mass/energy much faster than only those few kilogramms after billions of years.

"And thus it's proven, that drs. Giddings and Mangano's did not evaluate sufficiently all possible sources for hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes to accrete mass/energy much faster than only those few kilogramms after billions of years."

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

your proof bases on the assessment "sufficiently". This assessment is incorrect. Thus the consequence of misleading does not apply, i.e. the proof provided by you is wrong.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

your proof bases on the assessment "sufficiently". This assessment is incorrect. Thus the consequence of misleading does not apply, i.e. the proof provided by you is wrong.

Congratulations, Mr. Kannenberg, i failed (again) answering one of your famous quiz!

But would you, please, be so nice to explain towards me and the interested audience, WHY (on one hand) Giddings&Mangano did not at all evaluate how much mass (in how short time) TeV-scaled micro-black-holes eventually could gain by accreting particles (and antiparticles) which (are said to) apear in abundance due to vacuum-fluctuations?

And could you, by the way, explain also WHY (on the other hand) Stephan Hawking did indeed consider those very same (still quite hypothetical) particles (and antiparticles) as accretable matter for TeV-scaled micro-black-holes?

Thank you!

Sehr geehrter Herr Fasnacht,

anbei noch ein paar Quellenangaben über virtuelle Quarks und über myonische Atome:

1. virtuelle Quarks:
http://www.physicsmasterclasses.org/erlangen/de/sm_et/sm_et_qua5.html

2. myonische Atome:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myon


Freundliche Grüsse, Ralf Kannenberg

"famous quiz"

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

it is not a quiz: You accused somebody and I only asked for a proof on this.

"But would you, please, be so nice to explain towards me and the interested audience ..."

(1) A neutron star would be accreted even faster if such a process applies.
(2) Furthermore mBH's ins space would accrete huge amounts of matter from vacuum; they must be around in a high number and would influence all movements of all known celestrial bodies.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

Thank you, but could you please try to stay on topic and answer

WHY Stephan Hawking considerd those particles and antiparticles as accretabale matter?

and WHY Giddings and Mangano did not even mention those particles as a possible source of eventually fast gain of mass?

Could you please try to explain this gap, or ask Professor Bleicher or some other specialists at CERN?

If a particle and an anti-particle annihilate each other, the result is a gamma photon. Therefore empty space should have a background of gamma radiation, which we do not observe. Therefore, particles and anti-particles do not spontaneously arise from the vacuum and self-annhilate. Hawking's black hole evaporation theory must therefore be wrong.

Thank you, Rick!

this is exactly one of (if not the) most importent point(s) i want this discussion to lead to:
Hawkings-Radiation is famous!
untill summer 2008 Hawkings-Radiation was CERN's argument, why micro-black-hole-mass-productioning would be without any risk ...
only in summer 2008, obviously in reaction to Rossler's quest to find a proof of beeing wrong, CERN changed strategy and since than G&M's paper has become a quasi-bible.

Now G&M and Hawking do contradictively consider particles of vacuum-fluctuation as "not worth to even get mentioned" as an "accretebale source of mass/energy".

There's more (than just something) wrong in CERN's theories!

Rick Wagner's Website: http://chess.captain.at/strangelets-matter.html

"Therefore empty space should have a background of gamma radiation"

Hello Mr.Wagner,

nice energy source from vacuum, isn't it ?

Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

"Thank you, but could you please try to stay on topic and answer"

Thank you, Mr.Fasnacht.

Once more, I insist on a proof that your assessment about topic is correct.

Nota bene: Until now you have not been able to proof any of your shameless insultions.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

Dear Ralf Kannenberg!

you still didn't get the point:

question is, how it could come, that tose thousends of scientists at CERN probably still are believing into Hawkings-Radiation (as you agreed often in many comments) in spite of obviously necessary question-marks that should have been a warning.

Do you remember tose discussions in spring 2008 where everybody told me, that Hawkings-Radiation would be much more than a theory?

But sorry, i missed the point also.

Point is, that IF risks of creationing millions of TeV-scaled Black-Holes created intentionally at LHC should be considered as no-risk following Stephen Hawkings theory, THAN those supposed particles(and antiparticles) of supposed vacuum-fluctuations ARE considered as accretebale.

but

IF risks of creationing millions of TeV-scaled Black-Holes created intentionally at LHC should be considered as no-risk following G&M's paper from summer 2008 (neglecting all risks of hypothetical stable TeV-scaled Black-Holes created intentionally at LHC, THAN those supposed particles(and antiparticles) of supposed vacuum-fluctuations ARE considered as NOT accretebale.
(And thus not even worth mentioning.)

Do you now finally get the point of my question?
best regards,
Marc Fasnacht

Mr. Wagner,
the effect of vacuum fluctuations can be easily observed experimentally. One prominent example is the Casimir force.
Hawking radiation conserves energy since the BH looses mass. However, mass aggregation from the vacuum does not conserve energy.
Mac Mag

"Point is, that IF risks of creationing millions of TeV-scaled Black-Holes created intentionally at LHC should be considered as no-risk following Stephen Hawkings theory, THAN those supposed particles(and antiparticles) of supposed vacuum-fluctuations ARE considered as accretebale."

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

you spend much time with this constructed idea. I really support this, but if you are willing to invest so much time then please invest also some time to understand Hawking-Radiation in at least a little more detail.

I would like to give you a question where exactly to focus, but as usually you will most likely dequalify this 'as off-topic'.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg


@reading public: The point is which virtual particles become real and why.

off-Topic:

thank you, Mc Mag, for writing down the more correct form to spell the word aggregation!

my english is not that good, and my ability of correctly spelling scientific termini technici even worse.

(latin is worst ;-))

@reading public: The point is which virtual particles become real and why.

Dear Ralf Kannenberg!

these days i do not have enough spared time to invest, sorry.

But as i consider what all of us (including you!) are doing here, is worth investing time,

(as, in fact, we are doing CERN's own job of sharing information(s) with the public, helping people gathering questions and answers onto these (at least) eventually existantial topics,)

i would like to invite you, Ralf Kannenberg (and your friends), to publish here on this website a blog-entry, helping to understand Hawking-Radiation in, at least, a little more detail.

Best regards!

"i would like to invite you, Ralf Kannenberg (and your friends), to publish here on this website a blog-entry"

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

why ? You won't believe it anyway. You have ignored all my explanations regarding this issue. That is ok as I am neither a professor nor do I hold a nobel price, but then please consult specialists or read publications.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

"thank you, Mc Mag, for writing down the more correct form to spell the word aggregation!"

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

Mac Mag has not corrected your spelling, he has provided the correct physical explanation of this issue.

Key Words: Casimir force and energy conservation.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

why ? You won't believe it anyway. You have ignored all my explanations regarding this issue. That is ok as I am neither a professor nor do I hold a nobel price, but then please consult specialists or read publications.

Mr. Ralf Kannenberg!

Either you focus your postings onto blog-entry's topic or you please leave this website and go messing around in your home-forum.

I do indeed grant you the right to explain your (might be little) knowledge about Hawkings-Radiation towards the audience.

It's absolutly ok, if you do not like to contribute by writing a blog-entry onto your and your friends (might be little) understanding of Hawkings unprooven theory - but if you do not want to contribute anything else but stultifications, than i will block further commenting of yours in this and in all other blogs of this small private homepage of mine.


So - question to you, Mr. Kannenberg, is still what you, Mr. Kannenberg, might possibly think about the gap between CERN's (and Your's) security argumentationing before summer 2008 and after summer 2008:

Point is, that IF risks of creationing millions of TeV-scaled Black-Holes created intentionally at LHC should be considered as no-risk following Stephen Hawkings theory, THAN those supposed particles(and antiparticles) of supposed vacuum-fluctuations ARE considered as accretebale.

but

IF risks of creationing millions of TeV-scaled Black-Holes created intentionally at LHC should be considered as no-risk following G&M's paper from summer 2008 (neglecting all risks of hypothetical stable TeV-scaled Black-Holes created intentionally at LHC, THAN those supposed particles(and antiparticles) of supposed vacuum-fluctuations ARE considered as NOT accretebale.
(And thus not even worth mentioning.)

Marc Fasnacht

"Either you focus your postings onto blog-entry's topic or you please leave this website and go spamming around in your home-forum."

Either ... or, Mr. Fasnacht ??

Either you are interested in correct results, or you are not, Mr.Fasnacht !


And your permanent contentless insultions on a personal level only can result in one claim:


Either you return to scientific discussion - and stop your shameless insultions against your guests - or you and "your friends" can exchange their "ideas" without further scientific support.


I hope you have understood, Mr.Fasnacht !


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg


By the way: If you assess my contributions as "spamming", your scientific understanding is very close to zero !

IF(Vacuum is aggregated .AND. BH radiates)
THEN
energy is conserved
ELSE IF (Vaccum is aggregated .AND. BH grows)
energy is not conserved
ENDIF

IF (energy is not conserved)
THEN
theory bullshit
ENDIF

Sure, Mac Mag, my 'theory' would be bullshit, if it would be a 'theory'
but it isn't a theory - it is a hint to open the audience'e eyes towards a fundamental inconsistency of lhc-promoters risk-neglections.

I just showed the gap between
a) Stephen Hawking's assumption of aggregationability of those particles/antiparticles of vacuum-fluctuations
and
b) Giddings & Mangano (CERN/LSAG-2008), who not even mentioned those very same hypothetical particles/antiparticles of vacuum-fluctuations as at least eventually aggregationable.

Do you, Mac Mag, believe into G&Ms paper as an accurate description of mbhs growth of mass over billionth of years?
or
do you prefer to rely on Stephen Hawking's assumptions?
or
do you think, it would be more reasonable to rely on 'microcanonical'
interpretation based on Casadio Harms (2002)?

"to scientific discussion"

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

I appreciate very much that you continue the scientific approach.


"Stephen Hawking's assumption of aggregationability of those particles/antiparticles of vacuum-fluctuations"

I think this is the key point: This process is primarily not an accretion but it is a decay as the remaining virtual particle outside takes away energy from the black hole - this happens due to energy conservation - and becomes "real".

We see that such processes need to be described with means of quantum physics to get correct results.


"G&Ms paper as an accurate description of mbhs growth of mass over billionth of years"

Please be aware that G&Ms paper provides a safety estimation onto the safe side and not an accurate description.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

Dear Mr Kannenberg

"Please be aware that G&Ms paper...":

One could say, G&M provide a safety ESTIMATION in respect to the still existing celestial bodies RATHER than a pure and unbiased scientific calculation "open" in respect to all possible results and scenarios ?

Yours sincerely,

N. Tottoli

Quite right Marc..

What you talk about leads to the 'microcanonical' interpretation which provides the backing for Plaga's analysis, based on Casadio Harms 2002. Hawking has criticised the more traditional 'canonical' one - which CERN seems happy to rely on - as it neglects gravity on black holes and thereby of accretion of some proportion of radiating particles. There are a couple of other (shorter and mutually disagreeing) relevant microcanonical decay time estimates but casadio et al had already done numerous published papers on this before, until their care-free, dangerously neglectful efforts of last year. By looking at their own theoretical parameter ranges (like Plaga did) and allowing earth gravity on mbh or thermal motion-to increase accretion rate of earth, they (Casadio etal ), as black hole specialists, would probably have done enough to stop lhc. That would have been demanding, but more importantly, it would have been scientific.

I find CERN do their utmost to avoid confronting this microcanonical properly, as they would soon find their accretion model and one or two of CAssadiio parameters do lead to catastrophe, and this way there isn't even the suggestion of cosmic ray reassurance.

Eric

" 'microcanonical' interpretation "

Hello Eric,

could you please define this terminology ? It is impossible for me to give any assessment to your statements without a precise definition. The only "similar" terminology I have found at all is the microcanonical ensemble, a theoretical tool for thermodynamic properties description of an isolated system ...


Best regards, Ralf

Ralph

What you refer to is the theoretical tool used to keep the energy fixed as opposed to the temperature (canonical). By doing so, the gravitational potential of the black hole is taken into account in this context (not just that of accretion).

If you agree that to not do this in our case where the calculated results are effected (ie micro black holes), then perhaps you would agree that it is completely problematic as the basis for CERN's LHC micro black hole decay analysis.

Eric